Acts 15:40 and 41 say, “But Paul, having chosen Silas, went out, being commended to the grace of the Lord by the brothers. And he passed through Syria and Cilicia, establishing the churches.” This was the start of Paul’s second ministry journey, which ended in 18:22. The fact that Paul was commended to the grace of the Lord by the brothers indicates that he, and not Barnabas, had taken the right way.
In 16:1-5 we see that Paul came to Derbe and Lystra. “And behold, a certain disciple was there named Timothy, a son of a believing Jewish woman, but of a Greek father, who was well attested by the brothers in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted this one to go forth with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek” (vv. 1b-3). Paul’s circumcising Timothy because of the Jews indicates the strong influence of the Judaic background that still remained among the Jewish believers. This disturbed and frustrated the move of the Lord’s gospel.
In chapter fifteen of Acts the solution to the problem regarding circumcision was put in writing (15:20, 23-30), and Paul carried this letter with him. Acts 16:4 indicates this: “Now as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.” Why, then, did Paul circumcise Timothy? Considering Timothy good material for the work, Paul wanted him to go forth with him (16:3). We are told that Paul “took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places.” In circumcising Timothy Paul may have been exercising his wisdom to make the situation easier for him to preach the gospel. Otherwise there was no reason for Paul to have Timothy circumcised.
We need to consider Paul’s circumcising of Timothy in Acts 16 in the light of what Paul says concerning circumcision in the book of Galatians. Galatians 2:1-3 say, “Then after a period of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with me also. And I went up according to revelation, and I laid before them the gospel which I proclaim among the nations, but privately to those of reputation, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” These verses refer to what is recorded in Acts 15. In Acts 15 there is no mention of Titus, but in Galatians 2 Paul tells us that he took Titus with him to Jerusalem. Furthermore, Paul says that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. Since Titus in Galatians 2 was not circumcised, why did Paul in Acts 16 circumcise Timothy when he was on his second ministry journey? Here we see that Paul acted in two ways. On the one hand, Titus was not circumcised; on the other hand, Paul had Timothy circumcised.
Galatians 5:2 says, “Behold, I Paul say to you that if you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” How does this word apply to the circumcision of Timothy? Since Timothy was circumcised, did Christ profit him nothing?
In Galatians 5:4 Paul goes on to say, “You have been brought to naught from Christ, you who are justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” This is a serious word. To be brought to naught from Christ is to be reduced to nothing from Christ, deprived of all profit from Christ and so separated from Him, making Him void of effect.
In Galatians 6:14 Paul says, “But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the world.” In this verse the “world” is not the world in general but the Jewish, religious world. As the following verse indicates, here Paul is saying that the religious world has been crucified to him, and he to the religious world. In Galatians 6:15 he goes on to explain, “For neither is circumcision anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” As we have pointed out elsewhere, circumcision is an ordinance of the law, whereas the new creation is of the divine life with the divine nature.
Paul also speaks of circumcision in Galatians 5:6: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but faith operating through love.” Here the word “avails” indicates force or practical power. Circumcision is merely an outward ordinance and has no power or life.
How can we reconcile Paul’s having Timothy circumcised with what he says regarding circumcision in the book of Galatians? When he wrote Galatians, his attitude towards circumcision was altogether negative. In that Epistle he tells us that if we are circumcised Christ will profit us nothing, and that in Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything. Since this was Paul’s attitude toward circumcision, why did he have Timothy circumcised?